Times, they are a changing.

We live in a world where time does not stop. We cannot stop our existence in time, say in the roaring twenties or the fascinating fifties or plop ourselves back into history. A moral and cultural sensitivity existed in those decades that no longer exists today. Even before the two great World Wars, at the turn of the twentieth century, a moral and ethical certitude pervaded the globe. Everyone knew there place in society and each country managed to govern the masses based on a biblical reckoning accepted by the people. For example, in the 19th century, sex outside of marriage by a man or woman labeled one a harlot or gigolo. By the 20th century, children born outside of marriage became frowned upon, suggesting sex was now permissive. Now children born out of wedlock is commonplace and the Supreme Court has even sanctioned gay marriage. What changed? Moral and ethical norms which we get from the bible do not change. Society changed. Humans tend to tolerate a progressively depraved set of theological formulas at the expense of a well-functioning society. Most of this deformation can be blamed on the Protestant Reformation with their ideas of total depravity and their trend toward no centralized font of moral invective. With sola scriptoria, each man takes on a theological basis upon himself and the Bible means whatever he wants it to mean. The Catholic Church has stood on the sidelines and watched this deterioration without a word. At least the Muslims still hold onto biblical principles although many would call them radical and barbarian. Just like time, we cannot stop our accumulation of knowledge. We learn new things about genetics, electronics, robotics and even nature. The internet and cell phones have increased the dissemination of this accumulating knowledge to a wider and wider base of individuals throughout the globe at an alarming rate. But with this accumulation of knowledge and its dissemination and interpretation, we have somehow concluded that life, in general, and the individual in particular, has no meaning and neither are worth relishing. Such malice toward human life leads the uninformed toward a blasé attitude toward society, the family and eventually rips even the individual apart. Anything goes. Pornography, the sex trade, homosexuality, bestiality, satanical worship, abortion become accepted norms within society. The result is the breakdown of the family. The family, which is the building blocks of any society, even the building blocks of any church, disintegrates. The result is war, mass migration, and radical demonstrations. With this denigration of the individual and the family, comes the denigration of the church. The church is led to believe that it must follow the times and adapt to the changes within society to be morally relevant, otherwise its members will not learn and participate in its teachings. Its teachings become less strict to accommodate an ever increasing uninformed and doubting public. The church gets caught up in this vicious circle and its participation exposes itself to evil. The odd thing is that the truth, morals and ethics of the 19th century have not changed even through today. Morals and ethics have remained the same from the beginning of time. Individuals and societies change and people try to conform their lives to this ancient moral ethic and are not successful, so society either attempts to change the moral ethic or it becomes discarded altogether. Lets take one example in the Catholic Church to justify my position. Recently, more than 60 Roman Catholic theologians, priests and academics have formally accused Pope Francis of spreading heresy in a 25 page “filial correction.” This letter was written and signed by these 60 Catholic theologians in order to shed light on the deliberate or uninformed attempt by the Pope to “water down” the two millennia worth of teachings, canonical law and magisterium of the Catholic Church. They accuse Pope Francis’ attempt to extend communion to the civilly divorced and remarried in Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love) as a deviation from solid church teaching and thus a heresy. Never mind that they do not address the issue of homosexuality mentioned by the Pope in Amoris Laetitia, a document prepared by the Pope as a result of the Synod of Bishops of the Catholic Church in 2015. Here is a quote of the ‘filial correction’ letter the by 60 signatories. “The words, deeds and omissions of Your Holiness to which we wish to refer, and which in conjunction with these passages of Amoris laetitia are serving to propagate heresies within the Church, are the following:- Your Holiness has refused to give a positive answer to the dubia submitted to you by Cardinals Burke, Caffarra, Brandmüller, and Meisner, in which you were respectfully requested to confirm that the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris laetitia does not abolish five teachings of the Catholic faith.- Your Holiness intervened in the composition of the Relatio post disceptationem for the Extraordinary Synod on the Family. The Relatio proposed allowing Communion for divorced-and-remarried Catholics on a ‘case-by-case basis’, and said pastors should emphasize the ‘positive aspects’ of lifestyles the Church considers gravely sinful, including civil remarriage after divorce and premarital cohabitation. These proposals were included in the Relatio at your personal insistence, despite the fact that they did not receive the two-thirds majority required by the Synod rules for a proposal to be included in the Relatio.” These are very harsh accusations against the Pope, but the hierarchy and the laity want answers and valid theological reasons for any deviation from 2000 years of church teaching. Let’s turn briefly to the Dubia mentioned by the ‘filial correction’ letter of the 60 signatories. On September 19, 2016, Catholic Cardinals Carlo Caffarra, Walter Brandmüller, Raymond Burke and Joachim Meisner wrote to Pope Francis asking for an audience, raising the confusion caused by the language in Amoris Laetitia. The word ‘dubia’ is a Latin word meaning ‘doubt.’ In this context it is a letter of cardinals asking the Pope to clarify some questions concerning Catholic faith. Cardinals Carlo Caffarra and Joachim Meisner have recently died as the Pope continues to refuse to answer the questions propounded to him. Here is the list of the five questions:“1. It is asked whether, following the affirmations of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (nn. 300-305), it has now become possible to grant absolution in the Sacrament of Penance and thus to admit to Holy Communion a person who, while bound by a valid marital bond, lives together with a different person ‘more uxorio’ (in a marital way) without fulfilling the conditions provided for by ‘Familiaris Consortio’ n. 84 and subsequently reaffirmed by ‘Reconciliatio et Paenitentia’ n. 34 and ‘Sacramentum Caritatis’ n. 29. Can the expression ‘in certain cases’ found in note 351 (n. 305) of the exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ be applied to divorced persons who are in a new union and who continue to live ‘more uxorio’ (as man and wife)?2. After the publication of the Post-synodal Apostolic Exhortation ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (cf. n. 304), does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’ n. 79, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, on the existence of absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts and that are binding without exceptions?3. After ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (n. 301) is it still possible to affirm that a person who habitually lives in contradiction to a commandment of God’s law, as for instance the one that prohibits adultery (cf. Mt 19:3-9), finds him or herself in an objective situation of grave habitual sin (cf. Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Declaration, June 24, 2000)? 4. After the affirmations of ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (n. 302) on ‘circumstances which mitigate moral responsibility,’ does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s Encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’ n. 81, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, according to which ‘circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act ‘subjectively’ good or defensible as a choice?5. After ‘Amoris Laetitia’ (n. 303) does one still need to regard as valid the teaching of St. John Paul II’s encyclical ‘Veritatis Splendor’ n. 56, based on Sacred Scripture and on the Tradition of the Church, that excludes a creative interpretation of the role of conscience and that emphasizes that conscience can never be authorized to legitimate exceptions to absolute moral norms that prohibit intrinsically evil acts by virtue of their object?” In other words, must the Church accept what the evident words of the bible clearly means or must we now interpret them in such a way as we do not offend those who partake in open violation of the Bible’s prohibitions? This toleration of moral ineptness results in the examination of my own personal actions so that those who violate biblical laws are not offended, while in the meantime, strict observers of the law and commandments are frowned upon as discriminatory, misogynistic, bigoted and homophobic. Political correctness of our current ‘times’ plays a huge part in this form of reverse polarization. I am sorry that many do not want to follow the clear wording and meaning of 2000 years of church tradition and teaching. But violators have alternatives. Practice your confusion in the Protestant Churches or don’t call yourselves Catholics at all. Unfortunately, this theological chaos has fallen into secular society. These questions bring up extremely valid points which demand answers. The church’s future existence depends on the correct answers to these probing questions. Another issue raised in Amoris Laetitia was the burning question of homosexuality. Will the church ever validate a homosexual marriage? Can openly married homosexuals receive communion or become Eucharistic ministers? Will the Catholic Church ever perform homosexual marriages? At least this open and frank discussion within the Catholic Church is civil, unlike the political unrest taking place in America today between the conservatives versus the liberals, communists and fascists. One can be certain of one thing. All of the confusion and anarchy occurring in the world today, even with the Muslim jihad extremists, is a direct result of these unanswered questions. Times, they are a changing.

Reverse Discrimination

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a married gay couple filed a lawsuit against a cake shop owner who refused to bake their wedding cake because gay marriage is against the cake shop owner’s religious beliefs. The case has landed in the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, which granted gays the right to marry, did foresee a religious liberty conflict that stressed respect for "those who adhere to religious doctrines." Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a dissent in Obergefell. "Hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage." Lawyers for the cake shop owner argue "that people who disagree with the redefinition of marriage, should be able to continue to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and act on those beliefs.” In other words, freedom of religion trumps gay marriage and this newly created right of same sex marriage can be impinged upon when faced with a greater right. Otherwise, the gays have created a situation of reverse discrimination. Let me explain.Freedom of religion is a fundamental right upon which this country was almost exclusively founded. European settlers initially migrated to the New World because of the religious strife erupting between the Protestants and the Catholics beginning around the year 1520 with the Protestant Reformation and the Counter Reformation. The New world was settled by religious seeking Europeans. Quebec was founded by the French in 1606 by Catholics and Jamestown was founded by the British in 1607 by Protestants. South America and Mexico were conquered by Catholic Spaniards. When our United States Constitution was finally drafted and signed in 1787, the founders of our country insisted upon 10 bill of rights that were not specifically delineated in the Constitution. They include1. Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.2 Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well-regulated militia.3 No quartering of soldiers.4 Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.5 Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.6 Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.7 Right of trial by jury in civil cases.8 Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.9 Other rights of citizens may exist aside from the ones explicitly mentioned.10 All powers not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution are reserved to the states. Yet since their drafting, all of these rights under the constitution have some impingements placed upon them. Free speech and the right of association cannot create or lead to violence. Pornography can be regulated. The right to bear arms depends on which firearm one is bearing. The only right not impinged is freedom of religion. For example, the exemption from impingement of the exercise of religious freedom is clearly demonstrated in Leah Remini’s documentary: Scientology and the Aftermath. This so called “Church of Scientology” is granted tax exemption and at the same time believes that they are the prodigy of ancient aliens. Freedom of religion is sacred. A group can put the word church in front of just about any association of people and call itself a religion. Along with the exercise of this right is the avoidance or non-participation in anything which goes against your religion. Otherwise your religious right would no longer be free.Many people confuse rights delineated in the Declaration of Independence with those delineated in the Constitution. “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is a well-known phrase in the United States Declaration of Independence. The phrase gives three examples of “unalienable rights" which the Declaration says has been given to all of humanity by our Creator, and which governments were created to protect. But the Declaration of Independence does not retain legal authority over the citizenry of the United States because it was drafted before our government was ever formed. Thus, pursuit of happiness is not a right. Just because child pornography may make you happy does not make it a right. Marriage is not a right. Marriage is burdened by many laws. One cannot marry a minor or a first cousin. Supposedly one cannot marry a billy goat. One cannot marry two or more people at the same time because that would be bigamy or polygamy. Voting is not a right. A convicted felon cannot vote and an age limit of 18 is placed on all US citizens before voting. All rights in the Bill of Rights have been burdened with limits except freedom of religion. These rights in the first 10 amendments to the constitution were drafted as a limit on the federal government. All other conceived rights and their management were reserved to the States. Yet States rights have long since been impinged upon by a hazy concept of equal protection. Equal protection prevents discrimination based on race, religion or age. Generally, business entities and political entities cannot discriminate against a particular class of people based on age, sex or religion. The classes of people based upon sexual discrimination were men versus women, not society versus homosexuals. Therefore this new suit is a type of reverse discrimination. These homosexuals are forcing their depraved lifestyle upon a citizen’s deeply held religious beliefs, beliefs which are completely contrary to their type of dysfunctional lifestyle. These gay men, exercising a right that the Supreme Court only recently manufactured, are attempting to place a burden on a citizen who has been exercising a religious freedom right that has existed at least since the founding of this country. This gay couple could have just as easily gone to the cake shop around the corner, whose owner is an agnostic or atheist or an owner who has no religious beliefs at all. These homosexuals are discriminating against this citizen’s constitutional right to the free exercise of his religion. Religious belief far outweighs a newly orchestrated right of same-sex marriage. If this farce is allowed to continue, rest assured that the Catholic Church will be sued for discrimination for not marrying homosexuals.

Heretics

The alt-left has finally lost its mind to the devil and its soul in the process. First they use race and ethnicity to attack President Trump and any Republican that is fool enough to fall for this vitriol depravity. Bigotry, racism, neo Nazi, white supremacist are all favorite terms in their vocabulary. Soros uses Antifa and Black Lives Matter to ferment a race war in this country and religious wars between countries. The alt-left has now taken the final step. They are attacking their own religion. We now have heretics calling each other heretics. (All Protestants were declared heretics by the Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1545 A.D.) A conservative group of Protestants recently produced a document entitled the Nashville Statement which denounced homosexuality. A liberal group of pro-gay Protestants, not satisfied with the truths conveyed by the conservatives, issued a counter manifesto, called Christians United, stating that homosexuality and transgender lifestyles are “fully blessed by God.” Just as the racial alt-left attempts to rewrite history, Christians United is trying to rewrite the Bible. The Nashville Statement reaffirms exactly what the Bible says however. The bible states the following: “Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. “Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity.” Romans 1:26-27. “We know that the law is good, provided that one uses it as law, with the understanding that law is meant not for a righteous person but for the lawless and unruly, the godless and sinful, the unholy and profane, those who kill their fathers or mothers, murderers, the unchaste, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is opposed to sound teaching.” 1 timothy 1:8-10. “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, they have committed an abomination; the two of them shall be put to death; their bloodguilt is upon them.” Leviticus 20:13. “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination.” Leviticus 18:22. Catholics remain united with a clear voice even though the Pope has made statements such as “who am I to judge.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church has made very clear statements on the issue. “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.” CCC 2357. “This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.” CCC 2358. “Homosexual persons are called to chastity.” CCC 2359. No matter how much one hates these prescriptions, one cannot change their clear meaning, no matter how you attempt to spin these Bible verses. Christians United has no valid ground to base its arguments, so they rely on the same arguments as the alt-left, racism, bigotry and discrimination. These worn out derogatory terms will never change the truth of the gospel God gave us. These vitriol and divisive terms will never change our history, no matter how much fuse and confusion the alt-left fabricates by using them. You must know that there cannot be two sets of truths which oppose each other. Only one set of facts can be true. Fire burns. Water freezes at 32 degrees. A child is produced by an egg and a sperm. These are natural truths. One can argue against them but making counter agreements cannot and will not change these truth. The world was involved in two world wars. Slavery existed for thousands of years in the past and still exists today. Slavery existed in the United States and our country fought a civil war over that issue. Racism by both blacks and whites still exist. These are political truths which exist and cannot be changed no matter how much fake news one can generate to dissuade their belief. Then there are divine truths. These truth are the commandments God issued to humans through the prophets and His son, Jesus Christ and they are written in the Bible. They, like natural and political truths, cannot be changed. But divine truth has a more sinister purpose. A violation results in punishment. The adjudicator, sentencor and executor is God Himself. Justice is not dispensed through nature, public opinion, the Supreme Court, the alt-right or the alt-left. An unbridled violation results in the death penalty. Yes, God loves all but He also dispenses justice. You will find these prerogatives of God, love and justice, to be truths laid out plainly in the Bible, no matter how hard you attempt to convince yourself of their untruth. God does love all but He also dispenses justice. Just because God loves a homosexual does not legitimate his actions. God also loves the murderer but His love does not justify the murderer’s actions. God’s justice can be tough. Are you confused, retain hatred, greed and bigotry within your heart? Are you unhappy with your life and position within society? Just maybe you reject too many truths, natural, political and divine.